Open Access

Polymorphisms of TP53 codon 72 with breast carcinoma risk: evidence from 12226 cases and 10782 controls

Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research200928:115

DOI: 10.1186/1756-9966-28-115

Received: 16 April 2009

Accepted: 14 August 2009

Published: 14 August 2009

Abstract

Background

Previously, TP53 codon 72 polymorphisms have been implicated as risk factors for various cancers. A number of studies have conducted on the association of TP53 codon 72 polymorphisms with susceptibility to breast carcinoma and have yielded inconclusive results. The aim of the present study was to derive a more precise estimation of the relationship.

Methods

We conducted a search in the Medline, EMBASE, OVID, Sciencedirect, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) without a language limitation, covering all papers published up to Jan 2009. The associated literature was acquired through deliberate searching and selected based on the established inclusion criteria for publications.

Results

A total of seventeen case-control studies, including 12226 cases and 10782 controls, met the included criteria and thus were selected. Ultimately, the relevant data were extracted and further analyzed using systematic meta-analyses. Overall, no associations of TP53 codon 72 polymorphisms with breast carcinoma were observed (for Arg/Arg vs Pro/Pro: OR = 1.20; 95%CI = 0.96–1.50; for dominant model: OR = 1.12; 95%CI = 0.96–1.32; for recessive model: OR = 1.13; 95%CI = 0.98–1.31). In the subgroup analysis by ethnicity, statistically similar results were obtained when the data were stratified as Asians, Caucasians and Africans.

Conclusion

Collectively, the results of the present study suggest that TP53 codon 72 polymorphisms might not be a low-penetrant risk factor for developing breast carcinoma.

Backgrounds

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, exceeded only by lung cancer in the world [1]. It is believed that some epidemic factors such as Oral contraceptive use [2]; obesity [3] and hyperinsulinemia [4] are probable factors increasing risks of developing breast carcinoma. Although many individuals exposed to these risk factors, breast cancer develops only in a small group of exposed people, implying that genetic factors might contribute to the carcinogenic mechanisms and complex interactions between many genetic and environmental factors might be the major cause of breast cancer.

Previously, a number of studies indicate that family history is a risk factor for breast cancer [5], indicating the possible roles for genetic variations on the increased susceptibility to breast cancer. Recent published meta-analyses suggest that polymorphisms of Fok1 [6], XRCC1 codon 399[7] and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase[8] might have a significant association with increased breast cancer risk. Nevertheless, conversely, some meta-analysis failed to suggest a marked association of increased susceptibility to breast cancer with polymorphisms of some genes, such as Estrogen receptor alpha [9], CYP1A1 [10] and base-excision repair pathway genes [11].

Recently, a growing body of research has conducted on the association of breast cancer risk with tumour suppressors. TP53, one of the most extensive studied genes as a tumor suppressor, has been thought to have a critical function in cell cycle regulation. In case of its mutation, this regulation could be lost, resulting in cell proliferation without control and development of cancer. Previously, TP53 mutation has been indicated to associate with risks of a number of cancers such as lung cancer[12], breast cancer [13] and colorectal cancer [14]. The loss of TP53 gene could damage its DNA-binding properties and transcription factor function, thus leading to aberrant cell proliferation. In human populations, the TP53 gene is polymorphic at amino acid 72 of the protein that it encodes.

Recently, much attention has been focused on possible associations of TP53 polymorphisms and cancer risks. The most informative polymorphism in TP53 gene is located in exon 4 at codon 72, which encodes two distinct functional allelic forms arginine (Arg) and proline (Pro) because of a transversion G to C [15], resulting in different biochemical and biological protein features. Consequently, three distinct genotypes were created, namely, homozygous for arginine (Arg/Arg), homozygous for proline (Pro/Pro), and heterozygous (Arg/Pro). Previously, Arg variant has been thought to increase susceptibility to gastric cancer[16] and Arg homozygosity might contribute to cervical cancer [17]. Nevertheless, Pro homozygosity might have an association with lung [18] and hepotocellular cancer [19] risk. The heterozygous genotype Arg/Pro has been implicated as a risk factor for bladder cancer [20].

In recent literature, inconclusive data regarding TP53 codon 72 were found in some cancers, such as gastric cancer in which controversial conclusions were obtained in Asians [21] and in individuals from Northern Brazil [22]. Similarly, up to date, published data on the possible association of TP53 codon 72 polymorphism with breast carcinoma have also generated controversial and inconclusive results. To the best of our knowledge, whether TP53 codon 72 polymorphism could increase breast cancer risk remains largely uncertain. To clarify this association may help us better understand the possible risk of breast cancer and therefore contribute to its prevention.

As a single study may have been underpowered in clarifying the relationship of TP53 codon 72 polymorphisms with breast carcinoma susceptibility, in the present study we performed evidence-based quantitative meta-analyses that can increase statistical power to address the association.

Materials and methods

Literature search strategy for identification of the studies

We carried out a search in the Medline, EMBASE, OVID, Sciencedirect, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) without a language limitation, covering all papers published up to Jan 2009, with a combination of the following keywords: TP53, P53, codon 72, breast, carcinoma, neoplasm, tumor, cancer and polymorphism. The keywords were paired each time in order to get more relevant information. For example, the word "breast" was always kept and others were substituted in different moments.

We evaluated potentially associated publications by checking their titles and abstracts and then procured the most relevant publications for a closer examination. Moreover, the reference lists of the selected papers were also screened for other potential articles that possibly have been missed in the initial search. The following criteria were used for the literature selection for the further meta-analysis:

1. Studies concerning the association of TP53 codon 72 polymorphism with breast carcinoma;

2. Case–control or cohort studies;

3. Papers presenting the breast cancer diagnoses and the sources of cases and controls;

4. Articles offering the size of the sample, odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or the information that can help infer the results;

5. The number of individuals homozygous for arginine (Arg/Arg), proline (Pro/Pro) and heterozygous (Pro/Arg) in breast cancer cases and controls should be offered;

6. The methods of data collection and analysis should be statistically acceptable.

Accordingly, the following exclusion criteria were also used:

1. The design and the definition of the experiments were obviously different from those of the selected papers.

2. The source of cases and controls and other essential information were not offered;

3. The genetic distribution of the control group was inconsistent with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE).

4. Reviews and duplicated publications.

After searching, we reviewed all papers in accordance with the criteria defined above for further analysis.

Data extraction

Data were carefully extracted from all eligible publications independently by two of the authors according to the inclusion criteria mentioned above. For conflicting evaluations, an agreement was reached following a discussion. If a consensus could not be reached, another author was consulted to resolve the dispute and then a final decision was made by the majority of the votes. The extracted information was entered into a database. For data not provided in the main text, the relevant information was obtained by contacting corresponding authors as possible as we could.

Statistical analysis

The odds ratio (OR) of TP53 codon 72 polymorphisms and breast cancer risk was estimated for each study. The pooled ORs were performed for additive model (Arg/Arg vs Pro/Pro), dominant model (Arg/Arg+Arg/Pro versus Pro/Pro) and recessive model (Arg/Arg versus Arg/Pro+Pro/Pro), respectively. For detection of any possible sample size biases, the OR and its 95% confidence interval (CI) to each study was plotted against the number of participants respectively. A Chi-square based Q statistic test was performed to assess heterogeneity. If the result of the heterogeneity test was P > 0.05, ORs were pooled according to the fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel), Otherwise, the random-effect model (DerSimonian and laird) was used. The significance of the pooled ORs was determined by Z-test. The HWE was assessed via Fisher's exact test.

Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots[23], in which the standard error of log (OR) of each study was plotted against its log (OR). An asymmetric plot indicates a possible publication bias. The symmetry of the funnel plot was further evaluated by Egger's linear regression test[24]. In addition, fail-safe number for P = 0.05 (Nfs0.05) [25] for the evaluation of the reliability of meta-analysis, defined as the number of negative results that could reverse the significant findings, was also used to estimate the robustness of the meta analysis. Statistical analysis was undertaken using the program Review Manager 4.2 and SAS 8.1 software.

Results

Study characteristics

A total of 131 studies regarding TP53 codon 72 with respect to breast cancer were searched and screened for retrieval, of which 97 irrelevant studies were excluded. Then, 9 studies [2634] were excluded because each of them did not contain a control group. Next, of the remaining 25 studies, 2 studies[35, 36] were excluded due to their insufficient data and 1 study [37] owing to its review characteristic. Afterwards, another 5 studies [3842] were excluded because the genetic distributions of the control groups were not in agreement with HWE. Lastly, 17 case-control studies were selected (Figure 1). Of the all included 17 studies, 16 were written in English [4358] and 1 [59] in Chinese.
Figure 1

The flow diagram of included/excluded studies.

We established a database according to the extracted information from each article. The relevant information was listed in Table 1. According to the lists, the first author and the number and characteristics of cases and controls for each study as well as other necessary information were presented. As shown in Table 2, the distributions of TP53 codon 72 genotype of the included studies were also presented. The controls of the included studies were all in accordance with HWE.
Table 1

Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis

First Author

Publication Year

Number of Cases

Number of Controls

Types of Cases

Type of controls

Method

Country

Ref. No.

Själander

1996

212

689

Ductal carcinoma (>80% of the total cases)

Pooled individuals from several controls

PCR-RFLP

Sweden

43

Weston

1997

81

147

NS

NS

AS-PCR

USA

44

Li

2002

28

50

NS

50 healthy people (age-matched)

AS-PCR

China

45

Wang-Gohrke

2002

577

579

NS

NS

PCR-RFLP

Germany

46

Buyru

2003

115

76

NS

76 healthy people

PCR-RFLP

Turkey

47

Huang

2003

200

282

NS

282 healthy people

PCR-CTPP

China

48

Katiyar

2003

77

41

77 Sporadic breast cancer

41 Normal healthy women (age-matched)

PCR-RFLP

India

49

Mabrouk

2003

30

49

NS

NS

PCR-RFLP

Tunisia

50

Kalemi

2005

42

51

NS

51 healthy women

PCR-RFLP

UK

51

Tommiska

2005

1827

736

888 unselected breast cancer; 939 familial breast cancer

736 healthy population

TaqMan

Sweden

52

Baynes

2007

2023

2197

NS

NS

TaqMan

UK

53

Gochhait

2007

576

243

243 sporadic breast cancer; 333 unrelated breast cancer

243 healthy females (ethnically and geographically matched)

PCR-RFLP

India

54

Khadang

2007

221

205

221 sporadic breast cancer

205 healthy blood donors

AS-PCR

Iran

55

Schmidt

2007

5191

3834

NS

NS

TaqMan+ PCR-RFLP

UK

56

Sprague

2007

1912

1527

1708 invasive breast cancer; 204 in situ breast cancer

1527 drivers (< 65 year) and roster of Medicare beneficiaries (65–74 year)

TaqMan

USA

57

Zhang

2007

84

168

NS

168 healthy controls (geographic- and age-matched)

PCR-RFLP

China

59

Akkiprik

2008

95

107

NS

107 age-matched healthy controls

PCR-RFLP

Turkey

58

AS-PCR: Allele Specific PCR; RFLP: restriction fragment length polymorphism; CTPP: confronting two-pair primers; NS: not specified

Table 2

Distribution of TP53 codon 72 genotype among breast cancer cases and controls included in the meta-analysis

First author

Cases

Controls

HWE (control)

 

Arg/Arg

Arg/Pro

Pro/Pro

Arg/Arg

Arg/Pro

Pro/Pro

Chi-square

P

Själander

24

93

95

61

253

375

3.681

0.055

Weston (Caucasian)

6

27

32

3

42

72

1.189

0.276

Weston (African)

6

9

1

12

14

4

0.001

0.979

Li

11

11

6

10

26

14

0.109

0.741

Wang-Gohrke

282

221

49

300

203

40

0.485

0.486

Buyru

64

39

12

21

43

12

1.657

0.198

Huang

64

100

36

114

138

30

1.545

0.214

Katiyar

20

51

6

9

24

8

1.205

0.272

Mabrouk

18

9

3

19

26

4

1.432

0.231

Kalemi

26

13

3

10

32

9

3.326

0.068

Tommiska

825

617

109

403

278

52

0.183

0.669

Baynes

1107

768

148

1177

854

166

0.414

0.520

Gochhait

86

109

48

76

160

97

0.413

0.521

Khadang

83

109

29

75

90

40

1.873

0.171

Schmidt

2797

2008

386

2024

1523

287

0.001

0.983

Sprague

823

570

89

705

490

83

0.03

0.862

Zhang

21

45

17

47

87

33

0.406

0.524

Akkiprik

25

50

20

46

49

12

0.038

0.846

Test of heterogeneity

We analyzed the heterogeneity of Arg/Arg versus Pro/Pro and dominant model (Arg/Arg+Arg/Pro versus Pro/Pro) as well as recessive model (Arg/Arg versus Arg/Pro+Pro/Pro). As shown in Table 3, the heterogeneity for the overall data was significant in each of the above three models respectively because the P values were less than 0.05 for Q-tests. Thus, random-effect models were utilized for the meta-analyses.
Table 3

Main results of the pooled data in the meta-analysis

 

No. of cases/controls

Arg/Arg vs Pro/Pro

(Arg/Arg+Arg/Pro) vs Pro/Pro

Arg/Arg vs (Arg/Pro+Pro/Pro)

  

OR (95%CI)

P

P (Q-test)

OR (95%CI)

P

P (Q-test)

OR (95%CI)

P

P (Q-test)

Random-effect model

Total

12226/10782

1.20 (0.96–1.50)

0.11

0.000

1.12 (0.96–1.32)

0.14

0.01

1.13 (0.98–1.31)

0.10

0.000

Caucasian

11549/9830

1.15 (0.91–1.44)

0.24

0.001

1.11 (0.95–1.30)

0.17

0.06

1.09 (0.93–1.27)

0.28

0.000

Asian

631/873

1.36 (0.61–3.03)

0.45

0.000

1.19 (0.67–2.10)

0.55

0.006

1.22 (0.72–2.05)

0.46

0.002

African

46/79

1.46 (0.38–5.62)

0.58

0.76

1.12 (0.31–4.10)

0.86

0.45

1.60 (0.63–4.06)

0.32

0.22

Fixed-effect model

Total

12226/10782

1.09 (0.99–1.20)

0.10

0.000

1.09 (0.99–1.19)

0.06

0.01

1.04 (0.99–1.10)

0.13

0.000

Caucasian

11549/9830

1.07 (0.96–1.18)

0.24

0.001

1.08 (0.98–1.19)

0.12

0.06

1.03 (0.98–1.09)

0.25

0.000

Asian

631/873

1.27 (0.94–1.71)

0.12

0.000

1.16 (0.89–1.51)

0.26

0.006

1.15 (0.92–1.44)

0.22

0.002

African

46/79

1.47 (0.39–5.62)

0.57

0.76

1.17 (0.33–4.14)

0.80

0.45

1.67 (0.80–3.48)

0.17

0.22

Meta-analysis results

Table 3 lists the main results of the meta-analysis. No evidence showed that individuals who carry Arg allele have an increased or decreased risk of breast carcinoma compared with those who carry Pro allele.

In the present study, a total of 17 studies were included. Nevertheless, the study conducted by Weston et al. [44] concerned both Caucasians and Africans. Thus, the data were extracted respectively and further assessed by Revman 4.2 software. Consequently, the following results reported 18 studies.

As shown in Table 3, for Arg/Arg vs Pro/Pro, the data available for our meta-analysis were obtained from 18 case-control studies of 7377 cases and 6450 controls, of which 6288 cases and 5112 controls had the Arg/Arg genotype and 1089 cases and 1338 controls had the Pro/Pro genotype of the TP53 codon 72. The overall OR was 1.20 (95% CI = 0.96–1.50) and the test for overall effect Z value was 1.58 (P > 0.05). For dominant model (Arg/Arg+Arg/Pro versus Pro/Pro), the data available for our meta-analysis were obtained from 18 case-control studies containing 12226 cases and 10782 controls, of which 11137 cases and 9444 controls had the combined genotypes of Arg/Arg and Arg/Pro, while 1089 cases and 1338 controls had the homozygote Pro/Pro genotype. The overall OR was 1.12 (95% CI = 0.96–1.32) and the test for overall effect Z value was 1.47 (P > 0.05). Similarly, for recessive model (Arg/Arg versus Arg/Pro+Pro/Pro), the data were extracted from the 18 case-control studies concerning 12226 cases and 10782 controls, of which 6288 cases and 5112 controls had the wild-type homozygote Arg/Arg genotype while 5938 cases and 5670 controls had the combined variant genotypes (Arg/Pro and Pro/Pro) of the TP53 codon 72. The overall OR was 1.13 (95% CI = 0.98–1.31) and the test for overall effect Z value was 1.65 (P > 0.05).

Considering the possible impact of ethnic variation on the results, we conducted subgroup analysis concerning Asians, Caucasians and Africans, respectively. Likewise, the subgroup analyses failed to suggest marked association between TP53 codon 72 polymorphisms and breast cancer risk in Asians, Caucasians and Africans.

Sensitivity analysis

In order to compare the difference and evaluate the sensitivity of the meta-analyses, we also presented the results of the fixed-effect models as listed in Table 3. In all, the results were not significantly different between the two models, suggesting the robustness of the meta-analyses. Moreover, we also conducted one-way sensitivity analysis[60] to evaluate the stability of the meta-analysis. The statistical significance of the results was not altered when any single study was omitted (data not shown), confirming the stability of the results. Hence, results of the sensitivity analysis suggest that the data in this meta-analysis are relatively stable and credible.

Bias diagnostics

Funnel plots were created for assessment of possible publication biases. Then, Egger's linear regression tests were used to assess the symmetric of the plots. As shown in Table 4, for the dominant model, the data suggest that the funnel plot is symmetrical. However, for the additive and recessive model, the results indicate possible asymmetric of the funnel plots. Therefore, we further calculated the Nfs0.05 for evaluation of the stability of the results. Consequently, the Nfs0.05 were 237, 143 and 271 for additive, dominant model and recessive model respectively, which were more than five times of the number of the included studies, suggesting that the results of these meta-analyses are relatively stable and the publication biases might not have an evident influence on the results of the meta-analyses.
Table 4

Publication bias tests (Egger's linear regression test and Nfs0.05) for TP53 codon 72 polymorphisms

Genetic type

Coefficient

Standard Error

t

P value

95% CI of intercept

Nfs0.05

Arg/Arg vs Pro/Pro

2.757

1.0434

2.641

0.018

(0.544, 4.970)

237

Arg/Arg+Arg/Pro vs Pro/Pro

1.172

0.659

1.778

0.094

(-0.225, 2.570)

143

Arg/Arg vs Arg/Pro+Pro/Pro

2.726

1.183

2.305

0.034

(0.219, 5.234)

271

Discussion

In the present study, the results of meta-analyses showed that individuals with TP53 codon 72 polymorphism might not have significant associations with increased or decreased susceptibility to breast carcinoma.

A previous meta-analysis conducted by Koushik et al. [61] regarding cervical cancer suggests that homozygote Arg/Arg genotype increases susceptibility to both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. While another meta-analysis [62] indicates that Arg/Arg genotype only associates with increased risk of cervical adenocarcinoma but not squamous cell carcinoma. Then, Sousa et al. [63] failed to demonstrate Arg/Arg genotype as a risk marker for the development of cervical lesions in most of European countries. Conversely, nonassociations of TP53 codon 72 polymorphism with lung carcinoma [64] and gastric cancer [65] risk were found by meta-analysis. Nevertheless, An updated meta-analysis concerning lung cancer implied that Pro allele is a low-penetrant risk factor for developing lung cancer [66]. Thus, whether TP53 codon 72 polymorphism contributes to susceptibility to cancers varies in different types of cancer. In the present study, no evidence showed TP53 codon 72 polymorphism as a risk factor for breast cancer.

The underlying mechanisms by which TP53 polymorphism influences cancer risk are not fully understood. TP53 is the most frequently investigated gene that is often mutated in a variety of cancers. Nevertheless, several single-nucleotide polymorphisms have been studied and reported in TP53 gene [67]. The polymorphism of TP53 codon 72 occurs in a proline-rich region that is thought to play a critical role in the growth suppression and apoptotic functions of TP53 protein [68]. The two polymorphic variants differ in their capability of binding the transcriptional protein, activating transcription and suppressing the transformation of some primary cells [69]. For example, Arg variant might induce cell apoptosis and suppress transformation more efficiently than Pro variant do, which may be due to the ability of the Arg variant to localize in mitochondria that regulates the release of cytochrome c into cytosol. However, the present meta-analysis indicates that neither Arg nor Pro carriers may have a significant association with breast cancer risk. It is likely that TP53 codon 72 polymorphisms rarely affect the tumorigenesis and progression of breast carcinoma. Considering that the same polymorphism may play different roles in cancer susceptibility among different ethnic populations and the frequencies of single nucleotide polymorphisms may be different ethnicity, we stratified the data by race into three groups concerning Asians, Caucasians or Africans, respectively. Ultimately, statistically similar results were obtained, confirming nonassociation of TP53 codon 72 polymorphism with breast cancer risk.

A well-known risk factor, HPV infection, is thought to have an association with increased susceptibility to some cancers such as cervical [70] and oral cancer [71]. Evidence suggests that P53Arg72 protein may be more susceptible than P53Pro72 protein to HPV mediated degradation, thus increasing risk of HPV associated cancers [17]. Growing body of literature indicates HPV infection as a possible risk factor for breast cancer [72]. However, we did not further investigate the possible association of HPV infection with TP53 codon 72 polymorphism due to the insufficient data in the primary included studies.

Heterogeneity is a potential problem when interpreting the results of meta-analysis [73]. In the present study, significant between-study heterogeneity existed in overall comparisons. Nevertheless, when the data were stratified by race, the heterogeneity was decreased or removed, suggesting that differences of genetic backgrounds and the environment existed among different ethnicities. In the present meta-analysis, we excluded the studies in which the control groups were deviate from HWE. Thus, the between-study heterogeneity might be reduced. Moreover, random-effect models were used for combination of the data. Accordingly, the results may be credible and stable although the heterogeneity seemed evident.

Some limitations might be included in this study. First, in this meta-analysis, most published studies and papers written in English or Chinese were searched. Moreover, although papers written in some other languages, cited by PubMed, were also searched, it is possible that some related published or unpublished studies that might meet the inclusion criteria were missed. Hence, some inevitable publication biases might exist in the results, though the Nfs0.05 showed no remarkable publication biases in the meta-analyses. Second, in the subgroup analysis, the number of studies regarding Africans was relatively limited. It may be underpowered to explore the real association. Thus, the results may be interpreted with caution. Third, whether the experimental and control groups were from the same socio-economic status or the same geographic area have not been clearly presented in some of the included original papers, leading to any possible biases. Furthermore, the sample sizes of some included studies are rather small, which might be one of the reasons contributing to the between-study heterogeneity. Therefore, a number of further studies with large sample sizes with well-matched controls are required. Besides, gene-gene and gene-environment interactions should also be considered in the further studies.

In summary, despite the limitations, the results of the present meta-analysis suggest that genetic variations of TP53 codon 72 may not have a marked association with breast cancer risk.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Cancer, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University
(2)
Department of Thoracic Surgery, the 254thHospital
(3)
Department of Otolaryngology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University
(4)
Institute of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ: Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007, 57: 43-66. 10.3322/canjclin.57.1.43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F, Potter DM, Severs WB: Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006, 81: 1290-1302. 10.4065/81.10.1290.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Carmichael AR: Obesity and prognosis of breast cancer. Obes Rev. 2006, 7: 333-340. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00261.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Gunter MJ, Hoover DR, Yu H, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Rohan TE, Manson JE, Li J, Ho GY, Xue X, Anderson GL, Kaplan RC, Harris TG, Howard BV, Wylie-Rosett J, Burk RD, Strickler HD: Insulin, insulin-like growth factor-I, and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009, 101: 48-60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Pharoah PD, Day NE, Duffy S, Easton DF, Ponder BA: Family history and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer. 1997, 71: 800-809. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19970529)71:5<800::AID-IJC18>3.0.CO;2-B.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Tang C, Chen N, Wu M, Yuan H, Du Y: Fok1 polymorphism of vitamin D receptor gene contributes to breast cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009Google Scholar
  7. Saadat M, Ansari-Lari M: Polymorphism of XRCC1 (at codon 399) and susceptibility to breast cancer, a meta-analysis of the literatures. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008, doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0051-0Google Scholar
  8. Zintzaras E: Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene and susceptibility to breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Genet. 2006, 69: 327-36. 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2006.00605.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. González-Zuloeta Ladd AM, Vásquez AA, Rivadeneira F, Siemes C, Hofman A, Stricker BH, Pols HA, Uitterlinden AG, van Duijn CM: Estrogen receptor alpha polymorphisms and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008, 107: 415-419. 10.1007/s10549-007-9562-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Masson LF, Sharp L, Cotton SC, Little J: Cytochrome P-450 1A1 gene polymorphisms and risk of breast cancer: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol. 2005, 161: 901-915. 10.1093/aje/kwi121.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhang Y, Newcomb PA, Egan KM, Titus-Ernstoff L, Chanock S, Welch R, Brinton LA, Lissowska J, Bardin-Mikolajczak A, Peplonska B, Szeszenia-Dabrowska N, Zatonski W, Garcia-Closas M: Genetic polymorphisms in base-excision repair pathway genes and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15: 353-358. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0653.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Bumroongkit K, Rannala B, Traisathit P, Srikummool M, Wongchai Y, Kangwanpong D: TP53 gene mutations of lung cancer patients in upper northern Thailand and environmental risk factors. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2008, 185: 20-27. 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2008.04.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Assumpção JG, Seidinger AL, Mastellaro MJ, Ribeiro RC, Zambetti GP, Ganti R, Srivastava K, Shurtleff S, Pei D, Zeferino LC, Dufloth RM, Brandalise SR, Yunes JA: Association of the germline TP53 R337H mutation with breast cancer in southern Brazil. BMC Cancer. 2008, 8: 357-10.1186/1471-2407-8-357.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Mahdavinia M, Bishehsari F, Verginelli F, Cumashi A, Lattanzio R, Sotoudeh M, Ansari R, Semeraro D, Hormazdi M, Fakheri H, Rakhshani N, De Lellis L, Curia MC, Cama A, Piantelli M, Malekzadeh R, Iacobelli S, Mariani-Costantini R: P53 mutations in colorectal cancer from northern Iran: Relationships with site of tumor origin, microsatellite instability and K-ras mutations. J Cell Physiol. 2008, 216: 543-550. 10.1002/jcp.21428.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Ara S, Lee PS, Hansen MF, Saya H: Codon 72 polymorphism of the TP53 gene. Nucleic Acids Res. 1990, 18: 4961-10.1093/nar/18.16.4961.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Shen H, Solari A, Wang X, Zhang Z, Xu Y, Wang L, Hu X, Guo J, Wei Q: P53 codon 72 polymorphism and risk of gastric cancer in a Chinese population. Oncol Rep. 2004, 11: 1115-1120.Google Scholar
  17. Storey A, Thomas M, Kalita A, Harwood C, Gardiol D, Mantovani F, Breuer J, Leigh IM, Matlashewski G, Banks L: Role of a p53 polymorphism in the development of human papillomavirus-associated cancer. Nature. 1998, 393: 229-234. 10.1038/30400.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang YC, Lee HS, Chen SK, Chang YY, Chen CY: Prognostic significance of p53 codon 72 polymorphism in lung carcinomas. Eur J Cancer. 1999, 35: 226-230. 10.1016/S0959-8049(98)00369-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Yu MW, Yang SY, Chiu YH, Chiang YC, Liaw YF, Chen CJ: A p53 genetic polymorphism as a modulator of hepatocellular carcinoma risk in relation to chronic liver disease, familial tendency, and cigarette smoking in hepatitis B carriers. Hepatology. 1999, 29: 697-702. 10.1002/hep.510290330.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Mabrouk I, Baccouche S, El-Abed R, Mokdad-Gargouri R, Mosbah A, Saïd S, Daoud J, Frikha M, Jlidi R, Gargouri A: No evidence of correlation between p53 codon 72 polymorphism and risk of bladder or breast carcinoma in Tunisian patients. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003, 1010: 764-770. 10.1196/annals.1299.137.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhou Y, Li N, Zhuang W, Liu GJ, Wu TX, Yao X, Du L, Wei ML, Wu XT: P53 codon 72 polymorphism and gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of the literature. Int J Cancer. 2007, 121: 1481-1486. 10.1002/ijc.22833.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Khayat AS, Lobo Gatti L, Moura Lima E, de Assumpção PP, Nascimento Motta FJ, Harada ML, Casartelli C, Marques Payão SL, Cardoso Smith MA, Burbano RR: Polymorphisms of the TP53 codon 72 and WRN codon 1367 in individuals from Northern Brazil with gastric adenocarcinoma. Clin Exp Med. 2005, 5: 161-168. 10.1007/s10238-005-0081-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Munafò MR, Clark TG, Flint J: Assessing publication bias in genetic association studies: evidence from a recent meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2004, 129: 39-44. 10.1016/j.psychres.2004.06.011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997, 315: 629-634.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenthal R: The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979, 86: 638-641. 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Vieira JO, da Silva ID, Higo PE, Nogueira-de-Souza NC, Gebrim LH: Study of p53 codon 72 polymorphism in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2008, 29: 364-367.Google Scholar
  27. Bonafé M, Ceccarelli C, Farabegoli F, Santini D, Taffurelli M, Barbi C, Marzi E, Trapassi C, Storci G, Olivieri F, Franceschi C: Retention of the p53 codon 72 arginine allele is associated with a reduction of disease-free and overall survival in arginine/proline heterozygous breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2003, 9: 4860-4864.Google Scholar
  28. Xu Y, Yao L, Ouyang T, Li J, Wang T, Fan Z, Lin B, Lu Y, Xie Y: p53 Codon 72 polymorphism predicts the pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2005, 11: 7328-7333. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0507.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Siddique MM, Balram C, Fiszer-Maliszewska L, Aggarwal A, Tan A, Tan P, Soo KC, Sabapathy K: Evidence for selective expression of the p53 codon 72 polymorphs: implications in cancer development. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005, 14: 2245-2252. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0153.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Toyama T, Zhang Z, Nishio M, Hamaguchi M, Kondo N, Iwase H, Iwata H, Takahashi S, Yamashita H, Fujii Y: Association of TP53 codon 72 polymorphism and the outcome of adjuvant therapy in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2007, 9: R34-10.1186/bcr1682.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Hamaguchi M, Nishio M, Toyama T, Sugiura H, Kondo N, Fujii Y, Yamashita H: Possible difference in frequencies of genetic polymorphisms of estrogen receptor alpha, estrogen metabolism and P53 genes between estrogen receptor-positive and -negative breast cancers. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008, 38: 734-742. 10.1093/jjco/hyn097.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Vannini I, Zoli W, Tesei A, Rosetti M, Sansone P, Storci G, Passardi A, Massa I, Ricci M, Gusolfino D, Fabbri F, Ulivi P, Brigliadori G, Amadori D, Bonafe M: Role of p53 codon 72 arginine allele in cell survival in vitro and in the clinical outcome of patients with advanced breast cancer. Tumour Biol. 2008, 29: 145-151. 10.1159/000143400.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Lum SS, Chua HW, Li H, Li WF, Rao N, Wei J, Shao Z, Sabapathy K: MDM2 SNP309 G allele increases risk but the T allele is associated with earlier onset age of sporadic breast cancers in the Chinese population. Carcinogenesis. 2008, 29: 754-761. 10.1093/carcin/bgn024.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Kyndi M, Alsner J, Hansen LL, Sørensen FB, Overgaard J: LOH rather than genotypes of TP53 codon 72 is associated with disease-free survival in primary breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2006, 45: 602-609. 10.1080/02841860600660811.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Ogretmen B, Safa AR: Expression of the mutated p53 tumor suppressor protein and its molecular and biochemical characterization in multidrug resistant MCF-7/Adr human breast cancer cells. Oncogene. 1997, 14: 499-506. 10.1038/sj.onc.1200855.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Langerød A, Bukholm IR, Bregård A, Lønning PE, Andersen TI, Rognum TO, Meling GI, Lothe RA, Børresen-Dale AL: The TP53 codon 72 polymorphism may affect the function of TP53 mutations in breast carcinomas but not in colorectal carcinomas. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002, 11: 1684-1688.Google Scholar
  37. Weston A, Godbold JH: Polymorphisms of H-ras-1 and p53 in breast cancer and lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 1997, 105 (Suppl 4): 919-926. 10.2307/3433304.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Papadakis EN, Dokianakis DN, Spandidos DA: p53 codon 72 polymorphism as a risk factor in the development of breast cancer. Mol Cell Biol Res Commun. 2000, 3: 389-392. 10.1006/mcbr.2000.0241.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Noma C, Miyoshi Y, Taguchi T, Tamaki Y, Noguchi S: Association of p53 genetic polymorphism (Arg72Pro) with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer risk in Japanese women. Cancer Lett. 2004, 210: 197-203. 10.1016/j.canlet.2004.03.031.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Ohayon T, Gershoni-Baruch R, Papa MZ, Distelman Menachem T, Eisenberg Barzilai S, Friedman E: The R72P P53 mutation is associated with familial breast cancer in Jewish women. Br J Cancer. 2005, 92: 1144-1148. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602451.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Damin AP, Frazzon AP, Damin DC, Roehe A, Hermes V, Zettler C, Alexandre CO: Evidence for an association of TP53 codon 72 polymorphism with breast cancer risk. Cancer Detect Prev. 2006, 30: 523-529. 10.1016/j.cdp.2006.09.007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Costa S, Pinto D, Pereira D, Rodrigues H, Cameselle-Teijeiro J, Medeiros R, Schmitt F: Importance of TP53 codon 72 and intron 3 duplication 16 bp polymorphisms in prediction of susceptibility on breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2008, 8: 32-10.1186/1471-2407-8-32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Själander A, Birgander R, Hallmans G, Cajander S, Lenner P, Athlin L, Beckman G, Beckman L: p53 polymorphisms and haplotypes in breast cancer. Carcinogenesis. 1996, 17: 1313-1316. 10.1093/carcin/17.6.1313.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Weston A, Pan CF, Ksieski HB, Wallenstein S, Berkowitz GS, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ, Brower ST, Senie RT, Wolff MS: p53 haplotype determination in breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997, 6: 105-112.Google Scholar
  45. Li T, Lu ZM, Guo M, Wu QJ, Chen KN, Xing HP, Mei Q, Ke Y: p53 codon 72 polymorphism (C/G) and the risk of human papillomavirus-associated carcinomas in China. Cancer. 2002, 95: 2571-2576. 10.1002/cncr.11008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang-Gohrke S, Becher H, Kreienberg R, Runnebaum IB, Chang-Claude J: Intron 3 16 bp duplication polymorphism of p53 is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer by the age of 50 years. Pharmacogenetics. 2002, 12: 269-272. 10.1097/00008571-200204000-00012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Buyru N, Tigli H, Dalay N: P53 codon 72 polymorphism in breast cancer. Oncol Rep. 2003, 10: 711-714.Google Scholar
  48. Huang XE, Hamajima N, Katsuda N, Matsuo K, Hirose K, Mizutani M, Iwata H, Miura S, Xiang J, Tokudome S, Tajima K: Association of p53 codon Arg72Pro and p73 G4C14-to-A4T14 at exon 2 genetic polymorphisms with the risk of Japanese breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2003, 10: 307-311. 10.1007/BF02967650.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Katiyar S, Thelma BK, Murthy NS, Hedau S, Jain N, Gopalkrishna V, Husain SA, Das BC: Polymorphism of the p53 codon 72 Arg/Pro and the risk of HPV type 16/18-associated cervical and oral cancer in India. Mol Cell Biochem. 2003, 252: 117-124. 10.1023/A:1025546610920.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Mabrouk I, Baccouche S, El-Abed R, Mokdad-Gargouri R, Mosbah A, Saïd S, Daoud J, Frikha M, Jlidi R, Gargouri A: No evidence of correlation between p53 codon 72 polymorphism and risk of bladder or breast carcinoma in Tunisian patients. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003, 1010: 764-770. 10.1196/annals.1299.137.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Kalemi TG, Lambropoulos AF, Gueorguiev M, Chrisafi S, Papazisis KT, Kotsis A: The association of p53 mutations and p53 codon 72, Her 2 codon 655 and MTHFR C677T polymorphisms with breast cancer in Northern Greece. Cancer Lett. 2005, 222: 57-65. 10.1016/j.canlet.2004.11.025.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Tommiska J, Eerola H, Heinonen M, Salonen L, Kaare M, Tallila J, Ristimäki A, von Smitten K, Aittomäki K, Heikkilä P, Blomqvist C, Nevanlinna H: Breast cancer patients with p53 Pro72 homozygous genotype have a poorer survival. Clin Cancer Res. 2005, 11: 5098-5103. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0173.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Baynes C, Healey CS, Pooley KA, Scollen S, Luben RN, Thompson DJ, Pharoah PD, Easton DF, Ponder BA, Dunning AM, SEARCH breast cancer study: Common variants in the ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and TP53 cancer susceptibility genes are unlikely to increase breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res. 2007, 9 (2): R27-10.1186/bcr1669.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Gochhait S, Bukhari SI, Bairwa N, Vadhera S, Darvishi K, Raish M, Gupta P, Husain SA, Bamezai RN: Implication of BRCA2 -26G>A 5' untranslated region polymorphism in susceptibility to sporadic breast cancer and its modulation by p53 codon 72 Arg>Pro polymorphism. Breast Cancer Res. 2007, 9: R71-10.1186/bcr1780.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Khadang B, Fattahi MJ, Talei A, Dehaghani AS, Ghaderi A: Polymorphism of TP53 codon 72 showed no association with breast cancer in Iranian women. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2007, 173: 38-42. 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2006.09.010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmidt MK, Reincke S, Broeks A, Braaf LM, Hogervorst FB, Tollenaar RA, Johnson N, Fletcher O, Peto J, Tommiska J, Blomqvist C, Nevanlinna HA, Healey CS, Dunning AM, Pharoah PD, Easton DF, Dörk T, Van't Veer LJ, Breast Cancer Association Consortium: Do MDM2 SNP309 and TP53 R72P interact in breast cancer susceptibility? A large pooled series from the breast cancer association consortium. Cancer Res. 2007, 67 (19): 9584-9590. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-0738.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Sprague BL, Trentham-Dietz A, Garcia-Closas M, Newcomb PA, Titus-Ernstoff L, Hampton JM, Chanock SJ, Haines JL, Egan KM: Genetic variation in TP53 and risk of breast cancer in a population-based case control study. Carcinogenesis. 2007, 28: 1680-1686. 10.1093/carcin/bgm097.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Akkiprik M, Sonmez O, Gulluoglu BM, Caglar HB, Kaya H, Demirkalem P, Abacioglu U, Sengoz M, Sav A, Ozer A: Analysis of p53 Gene Polymorphisms and Protein Over-expression in Patients with Breast Cancer. Pathol Oncol Res. 2008, DOI:10.1007/s12253-008-9129-6.Google Scholar
  59. Zhang W, Jin MJ, Chen K: Association of p53 polymorphisms and its haplotypes with susceptibility of breast cancer. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2007, 36: 561-566.Google Scholar
  60. Tobias A: Assessing the influence of a single study in the meta-analysis estimate. Stata Techn Bull. 1999, 8: 15-17.Google Scholar
  61. Koushik A, Platt RW, Franco EL: p53 codon 72 polymorphism and cervical neoplasia: a meta-analysis review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004, 13: 11-22. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-083-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Jee SH, Won SY, Yun JE, Lee JE, Park JS, Ji SS: Polymorphism p53 codon-72 and invasive cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004, 85: 301-308. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2003.08.017.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Sousa H, Santos AM, Pinto D, Medeiros R: Is the p53 codon 72 polymorphism a key biomarker for cervical cancer development? A meta-analysis review within European populations. Int J Mol Med. 2007, 20: 731-741.Google Scholar
  64. Matakidou A, Eisen T, Houlston RS: TP53 polymorphisms and lung cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mutagenesis. 2003, 18: 377-85. 10.1093/mutage/geg008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhou Y, Li N, Zhuang W, Liu GJ, Wu TX, Yao X, Du L, Wei ML, Wu XT: P53 codon 72 polymorphism and gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of the literature. Int J Cancer. 2007, 121: 1481-1486. 10.1002/ijc.22833.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Li Y, Qiu LX, Shen XK, Lv XJ, Qian XP, Song Y: A meta-analysis of TP53 codon 72 polymorphism and lung cancer risk: Evidence from 15,857 subjects. Lung Cancer. 2009Google Scholar
  67. Pietsch EC, Humbey O, Murphy ME: Polymorphisms in the p53 pathway. Oncogene. 2006, 25: 1602-1611. 10.1038/sj.onc.1209367.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Dumont P, Leu JI, Della Pietra AC, George DL, Murphy M: The codon 72 polymorphic variants of p53 have markedly different apoptotic potential. Nat Genet. 2003, 33: 357-365. 10.1038/ng1093.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Chang CC, Hsieh YY, Tsai FJ, Tsai CH, Tsai HD, Lin CC: The proline form of p53 codon 72 polymorphism is associated with endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2002, 77: 43-45. 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02938-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Koshiol J, Lindsay L, Pimenta JM, Poole C, Jenkins D, Smith JS: Persistent human papillomavirus infection and cervical neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2008, 168: 123-137. 10.1093/aje/kwn036.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Miller CS, Johnstone BM: Human papillomavirus as a risk factor for oral squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis, 1982–1997. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001, 91: 622-635. 10.1067/moe.2001.115392.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Amarante MK, Watanabe MA: The possible involvement of virus in breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2009, 135: 329-337. 10.1007/s00432-008-0511-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Munafò MR, Flint J: Meta-analysis of genetic association studies. Trends Genet. 2004, 20 (9): 439-444. 10.1016/j.tig.2004.06.014.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zhuo et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement